Prev: Moving from 32 bit to 64 bit Terminal Servers and SQL
Next: Performance Tuning Windows 2008 x64
From: W on 30 Mar 2010 14:57
In a normal configuration, two Windows servers cannot both have write access
to a fibre channel logical volume without potentially corrupting the volume.
What are the *cheapest* options - using either standard Windows software or
a third party file system - that would allow two Windows servers to
simultaneously have write access to a single fibre channel volume?

--
W


From: RCan on 31 Mar 2010 15:44
Hi W,

this will only be possible with some "art" of clustered file systems. There
is currently only one from Microsoft available (CSV) which is free but
currently ONLY for Hyper-V usage supported.
don't want to make marketing here but.......unsure about exactly prices but
I personally had seen some really good demo's about Sanbolic's clustered
file system :
http://www.sanbolic.com/Melio_enter.htm
http://www.sanbolic.com/background.htm

But as I you possibly know there are also many others available ;-)
Finally myself would be really interested in "why or for what scenario you
would need this exactly ?"

Regards
Ramazan


"W" <persistentone(a)spamarrest.com> wrote in message
news:oYWdnVCME6UU1C_WnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
> In a normal configuration, two Windows servers cannot both have write
> access
> to a fibre channel logical volume without potentially corrupting the
> volume.
> What are the *cheapest* options - using either standard Windows software
> or
> a third party file system - that would allow two Windows servers to
> simultaneously have write access to a single fibre channel volume?
>
> --
> W
>
>
From: W on 31 Mar 2010 23:53
"RCan" <noospam(a)arcor.de> wrote in message
news:7EB4EB86-858B-45BD-A0EE-737FA408A949(a)microsoft.com...
> this will only be possible with some "art" of clustered file systems.
> There is currently only one from Microsoft available (CSV) which is free
> but currently ONLY for Hyper-V usage supported.
> don't want to make marketing here but.......unsure about exactly prices
> but

Hyper-V might work, but isn't that a failover scenario rather than
simultaneous read-write to the same volume? That architecture seems to
assume a lot of other pieces besides just two Windows servers sharing files.


> I personally had seen some really good demo's about Sanbolic's clustered
> file system :
> http://www.sanbolic.com/Melio_enter.htm
> http://www.sanbolic.com/background.htm

I'll look at that.


> But as I you possibly know there are also many others available ;-)
> Finally myself would be really interested in "why or for what scenario you
> would need this exactly ?"

We envisioned two Windows servers, each running some virtual servers on a
shared LUN. We don't need hypervisor, or migration of a VM from one host
to another while it is running. When server #2 tried to start up a
virtual machine already running on server #1, it would simply get an error
that the VM files were in use.

We simply wanted to have some level of redundancy for the host servers,
without hassling with clustering issues, or technologies to migrate VMs
across servers.

--
W


 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Moving from 32 bit to 64 bit Terminal Servers and SQL
Next: Performance Tuning Windows 2008 x64